Effects of coarse aggregate surface morphology on aggregate-mortar interface strength and mechanical properties of concrete

Jia, J. Y.; Gu, Xianglin

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123515

Cited by 25 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roughness influences the interface properties. Studies show that for concrete, the waviness of the concrete aggregate not merely increases the actual bonding area of the interface, it also enhances the mechanical interlocking between the matrix and the aggregate [ 37 ]. Similarly, the blocky beryllium powder has rough surface and microcracks, and the infiltration of aluminum in the microcracks of beryllium particles during pressure infiltration process can bring larger area mechanical bonding, which results in a stronger interfacial strength.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Interfacial Strength on Mechanical Behavior of Be/2024Al Composites by Pressure Infiltration

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, two kinds of Be/2024Al composites were prepared by the pressure infiltration method using two different beryllium powders as reinforcements and 2024Al as a matrix. The effect of interfacial strength on the mechanical behavior of Be/2024Al composites was studied. Firstly, the microstructure and mechanical properties of the two composites were characterized, and then the finite element analysis (FEA) simulation was used to further illustrate the influence of interfacial strength on the mechanical properties of the two Be/2024Al composites. The mechanical tensile test results show that the tensile strength and elongation of the beryllium/2024Al composite prepared by the blocky impact grinding beryllium powder (blocky-Be/2024Al composite) are 405 MPa and 1.58%, respectively, which is superior to that of the beryllium/2024Al composite prepared by the spherical atomization beryllium powder (spherical-Be/2024Al composite), as its strength and elongation are 331 MPa and 0.38%, respectively. Meanwhile, the fracture of the former shows brittle fracture of beryllium particles and ductile fracture of aluminum, while the latter shows interface debonding. Further FEA simulation illustrates that the interfacial strength of the blocky-Be/2024Al composite is 600 MPa, which is higher than that of the spherical-Be/2024Al composite (330 MPa). Therefore, it can be concluded that the better mechanical properties of the blocky-Be/2024Al composite contribute to its stronger beryllium/aluminum interfacial strength, and the better interfacial strength might be due to the rough surface and microcrack morphology of blocky beryllium particles. These research results provide effective experimental and simulation support for the selection of beryllium powder and the design and preparation of high-performance beryllium/aluminum composites.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Interfacial Strength on Mechanical Behavior of Be/2024Al Composites by Pressure Infiltration

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the analysis of the mortar-rock binary physical model, the tensile stresses in the vertical loading direction and the compressive stresses along the loading direction are σ x and σ y , respectively, as shown in Equations ( 19) and ( 20) The dynamic mechanical model of mortar-granite binary specimens is shown in Figure 17. For the analysis of the mortar-rock binary physical model, the tensile stresses in the vertical loading direction and the compressive stresses along the loading direction are σx and σy, respectively, as shown in Equations ( 19) and (20) cos sin The ratio of tensile stress to shear stress fs is shown in Equation ( 21), and the calculated results of mortar-rock under different interface inclination angles are shown in Table 6. Dynamic damage at the mortar-rock interface under impact loading follows the M-C criterion [51].…”

Section: Interface Dynamic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, some scholars have investigated the interface properties in concrete materials from experimental and analytical perspectives [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Kaplan [22] was the first to introduce the concept of fracture mechanics in the study of crack extension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Study on the Dynamic Fracture Characteristics of Mortar–Rock Interface Zones with Different Interface Inclinations and Shapes

Dong

Jiang

et al. 2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been little research on the impact resistance of mortar–rock slope protection structures. To ensure that the mortar–rock interface has good adhesion properties under the action of impact loading, in this paper, based on fracture mechanics theory, a theoretical impact model was established for mortar–rock binary material. Dynamic fracture tests were carried out on mortar–rock interfaces using the split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) system. The Brazilian disc (CSTBD) specimen was prepared with one half in granite and the other half in mortar. The specimen used for the dynamic impact test was 48 mm in diameter and 25 mm thick. The effects caused by the change in interface inclination and interface shape on the dynamic fracture mode were discussed. The dynamic model parameters were obtained for different inclination angles and interfaces. The results show that both the interface inclination and interface shape have significant effects on the dynamic mechanical properties of the mortar–rock binary material. The fracture modes of the mortar–rock specimens can be classified into three types. When the interface inclination is 0°, the specimen shows shear damage with an interface fracture; when the interface inclination is in the range of 0–90°, the dynamic splitting strength of the mortar–rock material increases with increasing interface inclination, and the interface undergoes composite fracture; and when the interface inclination is 90°, the dynamic splitting strength of the specimen reaches its peak, and the interface undergoes tensile fracture. The mortar–rock interface damage follows the M-C criterion. The roughness of the interface shape has a large influence on the dynamic splitting strength of the specimens. The rougher the interface shape, the higher the interface cleavage strength and the higher the peak load that causes the material to damage. The results of this study can provide a reference for the design of mortar–rubble structures to meet the demand for impact resistance and have strong engineering application value.

show abstract

“…Compared with concrete, mortar rubble has a larger aggregate size (>15 mm) and aggregate volume fraction, and its fracture properties are different from those of ordinary concrete. The main contribution to the bonding strength of the interface between the schist aggregate and the cement is the interlocking force, while the chemical force is relatively small, and the locking effect refers to mechanical occlusion [6][7][8][9][10][11]. The interface between the mortar and the flake aggregate is often weak due to unstable bonding during construction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies showed that there is an interfacial zone (ITZ) between mortar and aggregate in mortar screed. The properties of the structure in the interfacial region have a great influence on the overall strength of the structure [9,27,37,38]. Caliskan et al [39] applied the aggregate push-out test and determined that the bonding strength of the ITZ is related to the surface roughness of the aggregate, the interfacial thickness and the amount of silica in the ITZ.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the Failure Mechanism of Mortar Rubble Using Digital Image Correlation, Acoustic Emission and Scanning Electron Microscopy

Chen

Dong

et al. 2022

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes an extensive experimental study of the compressive failure of different types of aggregates and the influence of aggregate type on the interfacial properties of mortars. Interfacial debonding was the main failure mode of mortar rubbles. The interlocking strength of aggregate and mortar strongly affected the compressive strength of materials. When basalt was used as the aggregate, I-II composite failure of the deflection crack occurred as well as interfacial debonding. The highest instantaneous AE energy of the granite mortar rubble was 1349 mV·ms, which was 4.1 times greater than that of the basalt mortar rubble (326 mV·ms). Acoustic emissions of mortar rubble were strongest in the 150–220 kHz range and gave an early warning of the damage load at high frequencies (160–320 kHz). The C-S-H gel formed by the hydration reaction adhered to the aggregate pores and exhibited a “root pile” effect that improved the bonding performance of the interfacial zone. The interfacial porosity of the basalt, granite and limestone mortar rubble was 21.29%, 18.70% and 30.0%, respectively. The limestone interface has a large porosity, the fractal cones was small (1.19), and there was an obvious sidewall effect, but the interfacial strength was weak. The pore structure had a significant effect on the interfacial bond strength. This multi-faceted analysis truly reflected the state and evolution of the damage of mortar rubbles, and the results were very effective for determining the mechanical mode of damage of mortar rubbles.

show abstract

Effects of coarse aggregate surface morphology on aggregate-mortar interface strength and mechanical properties of concrete

Cited by 25 publications

References 31 publications

Effect of Interfacial Strength on Mechanical Behavior of Be/2024Al Composites by Pressure Infiltration

Effect of Interfacial Strength on Mechanical Behavior of Be/2024Al Composites by Pressure Infiltration

Experimental Study on the Dynamic Fracture Characteristics of Mortar–Rock Interface Zones with Different Interface Inclinations and Shapes

Study of the Failure Mechanism of Mortar Rubble Using Digital Image Correlation, Acoustic Emission and Scanning Electron Microscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About